Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Planning Director Andrew Epple noted the first order of business was to select a chairperson for this meeting. Roger Cruwys was selected as Chairperson Pro-Tem. He called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. He directed the secretary to take the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Ed McCrone Kim Walker Debbie Arkell Jerry Perkins Mara-Gai Katz Carol Schott Nick Salmon Walt Willett Andy Epple Dave Jarrett Henry Sorenson Jim Coons Roger Cruwys Diane Bellgowin Bill Hanson Shelly Engler Clint, Morrison-Maierle Steve Corning Keith Belden Dave Hutchinson Andy Stephenson Gene Graf Sandy Fisher Stephen Hundley Dave Jarrett Yvonne Jarrett ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 141) 1998,MEETING Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys asked for additions or corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, he declared them approved as presented. ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM Ranch and Home Expansion MaSP/COA#Z-98120 - (Skelton) 2275 North 7"`Avenue - A Major Site Plan Application to allow an approximately 20,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing retail structure. MOTION: Ed McCrone moved, Henry Sorenson seconded to approve the Ranch and Home Expansion MaSP/COA as presented. The motion carried 5-0, with Walt Willett abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 1 ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Gallatin Valley Mall COA#Z-9849 - (Arkell) 2825 West Main Street - A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to add new entry forms at the three existing south entries of the Gallatin Valley Mall (Bozeman Main Mall). Steve Corning and Jim Coons joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell noted that the DRB had looked at this project informally and Staff determined that DRB should look at the final product. She reviewed the application, noting there is only one condition- to get a building permit within one year. Jim Coons reviewed the changes made since the informal review, noting the details are basically the same, he just fine-tuned them. He noted the entrances were left equal in size and appearance so no major tenant would feel slighted. Steve Corning noted they wish to begin the exterior modifications this fall and interior renovations next year. Bill Hanson asked if the piers were steel pipes. Jim Coons noted they are masonry as well as steel pipes. Bill Hanson asked for the color of the proposed steel overlay. Jim Coons noted they would be in brown tones. Mara-Gai Katz had no comments. Ed McCrone asked if the applicants have to comply with landscape requirements. Debbie Arkell noted the landscaping meets the code that was in effect at the time the Main Mall was built. She continued, until they do a 20% expansion, they don't fall under the current code. Ed McCrone asked about the plans for a theater. Steve Corning noted that they don't plan to do it right now, as they don't know what will happen to the Buttreys space if they are bought out by Albertsons. Walt Willett commented on the three entryway details, noting that he had suggested one design, however, in looking at it, one doesn't see the whole building at once, but in sections due to the curved design. Henry Sorenson noted that more landscaping would be great. He noted they are doing several things that aren't required, however, he'd like to see more landscaping added. Steve Corning noted they are trying to build a first class business and will eventually look at adding landscaping. Chairperson Pro-Tern Roger Cruwys encouraged them to soften the parking lot with landscaping. He also suggested two more dogwoods with the pines and using a different pine than a ponderosa in the landscape areas on the south elevation. MOTION: Henry Sorenson moved to approve the project with Staff s one condition. Bill Hanson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 2 B. Bridger Peaks Town Center Zoning PUD #Z-98119 - (Saunders) Northeast corner of North 19"Avenue and Oak Street A Major Subdivision Application and a Zoning Planned Unit Development Application to allow the subdivision of 42.24 acres into 13 lots for a commercial Planned Unit Development. Keith Belden, Andy Stephenson, David Hutchinson, and Shelly Engler joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the application in Planner Chris Saunders's absence. She noted that this is the only chance the DRB have to review this site as the applicant is seeking building footprint approval with architectural guidelines that will. Andy Stephenson noted they just received the comments this morning and hadn't had time to review thoroughly. He noted the changes they have made since the informal review. Planning Director Andrew Epple asked Andy Stephenson to explain those changes further. Bill Hanson asked about the timing between phase 1 and phase 2. Andy Stephenson noted that the phasing will be determined by how much they can get done this fall. Ed McCrone asked about the landscaping required in the conditions and if the landscaping had been increased. Shelly Engler noted the landscape islands have been increased in size and the conditions seem reasonable. She noted she will have to look to see if the square footage of the landscaping has been met. She continued, the number of trees is pretty close. She noted they can plant the trees in a straight line, if that is what is required, however, they would rather plant them as indicated on the plan to add interest. Dave Hutchinson noted they have scanned the conditions and haven't seen any thing that will cause problems. Keith Belden concurred. Andy Epple noted that the conditions should be worked out with Staff. Ed McCrone complimented the design. Henry Sorenson asked about the tower structures. Andy Stephenson noted they are intended to create a focal point. Henry Sorenson noted they have done a tasteful job of providing a treatment that is easy on the eye. He complimented them for adding islands of greenery to break up the large parking areas. He noted they didn't plan use the retention ponds as greenspace, which adds to the open space. Andy Stephenson noted they are for function and could be a liability, therefore, they are not being considered "people" areas. Keith Belden further explained the philosophy of the retention ponds. Henry Sorenson asked for an explanation of the retention pond along the stream. Keith Belden explained how the stormwater drainage will be handled before being dumped into the Farmer's Canal. Henry Sorenson noted that the two buildings with the alley between could be a problem. He likes the arcing on the front elevation. He hopes that the design on the back building will be as bold as on the front. Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys asked about the quality of the water in the Canal now. Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 3 Keith Belden noted he didn't know. Chairperson Pro-Tern Roger Cruwys concurred with Henry Sorenson on the treatment of the two buildings. He noted he likes the grouping of the two large buildings. He suggested enhancing the stream corridor with a trail even though it would go nowhere yet. He noted there is an almost static situation with the lots along North 19'h Avenue. He suggested moving two buildings closer together. Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys discussed the plantings along the buildings, the landscaping islands, and the landscaping along North 191h Avenue. MOTION: Henry Sorenson moved to recommend approval the application with conditions to the Planning Board and suggested that staff consider the more informal landscaping along North 19`h Avenue. Ed McCrone seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. C. The Gallatin Center MaSub and Zoning PUD #P-9834 & #Z-98119 - (Arkell) West of North 19"Avenue between Baxter Lane and Valley Center Drive - A Major Subdivision Application and a Zoning Planned Unit Development Application to allow the subdivision of 141.65 acres into 27 lots for a commercial Planned Unit Development. Steve Hundley, Gene Graf, Dave Jarrett, Diane Bellgowin, Sandy Fisher, and Yvonne Jarrett joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the applications, noting that all sites except the Target site will go through further review. She reviewed the proposed conditions for the PUD, the Target Store proposal, and the proposed conditions for the Target Store. Steve Hundley noted they are here to address the Target site. He gave a broad overview, noting that they want to begin site development this fall, and are targeting October of 1999 for the opening date. He noted the changes incorporated from the informal review comments. Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys noted the discussion should start with the overall PUD, then move to the Target Store proposal. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell noted that each site of the PUD will be reviewed except for the Target Store and minor site plans, which are reviewed by ADR Staff. Planning Director Andrew Epple noted a recommendation on the overall zoning PUD and MaSub is to be made by the DRB to the Planning Board. Bill Hanson asked if any of the issues would be problems for the applicants. They indicated the conditions were not a problem. Discussion followed on the wetlands in the south west comer. Gene Graf noted they haven't considered doing any disturbance of the wetlands area, noting there is an opportunity to put in a trail in the area outside the wetlands, but within the open space. He noted he would like to make it a sculpture garden for local artists to display and sell their wares. Ms. Fisher noted landscape furniture, as conditioned, would be an attractive addition. She noted there is no defined plan for the wetlands other than to have a trail beside them. Bill Hanson asked what will happen with North 27"Avenue. Gene Graf noted they redesigned the street to contain it within this development along the east side of Thomas Lane and swing it Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 4 the west just north of the existing housing development. Discussion followed on the power line location in the median along the west side of North 27i11 Avenue. Ed McCrone noted that the recommendation for the decrease in open space is from 30% to 27.7%. He concurs with Staffs review. He suggested that DRB recommend approval of the reduction to the City Commission. He complimented the idea of maintaining the open space on the west side. Walt Willett concurred with Ed McCrone that they have met the guidelines to reduce the open space to less than 30% and he supports the reduction. Henry Sorenson asked for a description of the Fen and its location. Gene Graf noted it is a stream corridor along West Catron Street. Henry Sorenson asked for a description of the Rolfe property. Gene Graf provided the history. Henry Sorenson noted that this is an opportunity for Target to make something great in the north end of the Fen and to call attention to the site by relaxing the requirements with a PUD. Discussion followed on the rationale behind the success of a retail store and the requirement for open space. Henry Sorenson noted there should be a master plan that masterminds the overall uses of the site and that shows how all the parts come together to make a whole. Diana Bellgowin noted a study they did which found that at least one design didn't work, therefore, the design was changed. Discussion continued on the design of the whole PUD. Henry Sorenson noted he is supposed to vote on the approval of a PUD, which the allows no further opportunity to review and he doesn't feel he has the information required to do so. Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys summarized the comments from Henry Sorenson as: the basics of retail sales, the need for a framework for tying the PUD together, and the need to see the total picture. Chairperson Pro-Tem.Roger Cruwys noted that during the informal review, DRB suggested there be something to break up the monotony. Discussion followed on how a master plan ties the open space together and how the open space breaks up the sea of asphalt. Henry Sorenson noted that the PUD is a significant stage of the development, as, if the PUD isn't approved, then Target doesn't happen as per Planner Arkell in her introduction of the application. Mr. Hundley explained the concept of the landscaping planned. Dave Manley summarized the restrictions that the PUD guidelines require, noting it is inconceivable to dictate what will happen in the future lots when they don't know who or what type of retail business will be located there. Henry Sorenson noted he understands that Mr. Hundley has a vision, but he just can't see it. Discussion followed on a Master Plan for the site, the Architectural Guidelines for the project, and the make up of the Architectural Review Board. Planner Arkell noted that when the time comes for the motion, a condition could be added to address the above needs. Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 5 Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys asked for discussion of the Target Store. Mr. Hundley reviewed the whole project and the Target site. Discussion followed on the meandering sidewalks, berms, and the Target Store. Ms Bellgowin reviewed the architectural design of the structure. Mr. Hundley noted the exterior treatment of the front elevation is being carried around to the sides and back of the building. Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys noted the DRB just wants the three sections of the building to tie together. (Planner Arkell asked for there to be only one discussion at the table.) Planner Arkell asked if there were any concerns with the six conditions for Target. Bill Hanson noted that the comment on the sea of parking made during the informal review and how it has been addressed, then he asked that more amenities be used as the sea of asphalt is still very visible. Stephen Hundley suggested installing a continuous planter to stop the parking area sprawl, however, not at the point of entry to a store. The DRB concurred with both suggestions. Diane Bellgowin explained why there is no need for pedestrian circulation, as people do not walk to shop at Target. Mr. Sorenson noted that though this site is conducive to a car culture, there is a need to get the patrons from the street/parking lot to the store. Discussion followed on the combining of some of the small landscape islands into one or two larger islands. Mr. Hundley noted this could be done at the expense of parking. Chairperson Pro- Tern Roger Cruwys suggested clustering the trees, which he didn't feel would infringe on the parking spaces. Mr. Hundley concurred, noting it would work if the Code will allow. Bill Hanson asked if there is any seating under the trellis work. Diane Bellgowin noted as of yet no, but it could be done. Bill Hanson suggested adding seating. Diane Bellgowin asked if the landscaping against the building could be moved into the middle of the walkway in front of the building. Bill Hanson noted it could and would be a better site for it. Discussion followed on possible uses of the trellised area. Mara-Gai Katz had no further comments. Ed McCrone complimented them on their team effort. He noted that the submittal follows fairly well the code and the North 19th Corridor guidelines. He noted that it is difficult to be too specific about the Architectural Guidelines as the different tenants will desire different things. He feels they have justified reducing the open space. He is in support of the PUD, however, he would like to see more grouping of the planting areas in the Target parking lot. Walt Willett noted it is difficult to allow for flexibility and yet have set guidelines. He noted he likes the overall PUD, however, the little islands in parking lots are disillusioning as they are too small to be effective and suggested combining them as much as possible. He complimented the applicants for taking a large box and giving it some character. He noted he supports the PUD and the Target Store applications. Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 Henry Sorenson noted that Mr. Hundley appears to be a very thoughtful artist, noting that what the DRB is looking for is the Master Plan that pulls it all together. He continued, the DRB needs to feel the place, to know what will bind the future tenants to the Master Plan. He'd like to see this application one more time. Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys noted the DRB and applicants/representatives are all after the same thing. He thinks the submittal requirements should include more bubble diagrams that show the process. He noted he will discuss the issue with the City. He feels that everyone at the table is talking about the same thing. He supports the reduction of the open space. He complimented the applicants on making the box look less like a box. MOTION: Chairperson Pro-Tem Roger Cruwys moved to recommend approval as per Staffs condition including the reduction to 27.7% of the open space as per the reasons of Staff and DRB, and adding a condition to unify the themes, to be submitted to Staff as part of the Final PUD Plan. Bill Hanson seconded the motion. During the discussion of the motion, Mara-Gai Katz noted she would like to see the Final PUD Plan prior to Final PUD approval, with drawings being presented back to this board for a recommendation of approval. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Roger Cruwys, Chairpersoq'Pro-Tem, sign Review B94 d Design Review Board Minutes-July 21,1998 7